§ 3.35 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD)My Lords, with permission I will now answer the Private Notice Question which was put earlier in the afternoon. I will use the words which have been used in answer to a similar Question in another place, the words of my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary:
"Sir Frederick Crawford's passport was impounded in accordance with the policy explained"—
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I gathered that the Question had been put earlier. If the House would like to be reminded of it, I presume it is in the same terms as the Question asked in another place:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport at Heathrow on Tuesday".
My Lords, the Answer is:
"Sir Frederick Crawford's passport was impounded in accordance with the policy explained in the first paragraph of the statement made to the House"—
that is, the House of Commons—
"by my right honourable friend, the then Commonwealth Secretary, on January 25, 1966."
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, before I ask the noble Lord any other question, may I ask him, for the information of the House, whether he will remind the House what the first paragraph of the Statement of January 25 was?
§ LORD SHEPHERDI have it with me, my Lords. The statement was as follows:
In general, the passport facilities granted to persons known to be active supporters of the illegal régime, whether such persons are Rhodesian citizens, United Kingdom citizens or dual citizens, are confined to documentation for their return to Rhodesia, though exemp- 1578 tions may be made in compassionate cases".—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons, 25/1/66, col. 4.]
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am rather surprised to hear the first paragraph of that Statement on January 25, 1966, because through the usual channels, and through the courtesy which the noble Lord opposite always shows. I have had the opportunity to look up the quotation, and it has absolutely no bearing on passports of any kind. I have looked up the quotation in Hansard, and it has absolutely no bearing. Could the noble Lord explain that?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, before we have the "Hear, hear!" perhaps we might have the information, would refer the noble Lord to column 4 of Hansard of January 25, 1966, in reply to Question No. 13, by Mr. Lomas.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, obviously we cannot produce all the Hansards, and I must accept what the noble Lord says. But may I ask him for what purpose the confiscation of this passport has been carried out?—because it seems to those of us who sit on this side of the House a most extraordinarily mean and petty action, and none of us can see what possible useful purpose it can serve. Here is a distinguished public servant who has spent a long time in the service of the Crown and who now appears to be treated like an enemy alien and as if we were at war with Rhodesia. I must tell the noble Lord that we who sit on this side of the House really are rather ashamed of the Government, that they should behave in this way.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, it is perfectly true that this gentleman has been a servant of the Crown, and a Governor of two Territories. He now resides in Rhodesia and the information that is available is that he has given comfort to the illegal régime in Rhodesia. It is on that basis that the decision was taken.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, with all respect to the Leader of the Conservative Party, may I put it to the Government that the most worrying aspect of this is the fact that there was no procedure whereby the person could be 1579 heard in his own defence before the passport was taken away from him? Is this not quite contrary to all the rules of natural justice? No-one is deprived of membership of a trade union without being allowed to be heard. That is a rule of natural justice. I would ask therefore, what are the Government going to do about it?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, passports are issued under the prerogative and discretion of the Crown. They remain the property of the Crown and may be withdrawn. We have had such withdrawals over the years—not necessarily in connection with Rhodesia. Therefore the policy under which the passport has been withdrawn has not been changed. As the noble Lord is aware, Sir Frederick Crawford has been to the Commonwealth Office; and no doubt if he wishes to proceed further in this way he will be fully entitled to do so and will be received by the Department.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, where is the proof, the judicial proof, that this man has given aid to the régime? And what about the 80 others who have been apparently caught in the same way, although this one got the publicity?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the figure of 80 is a gross exaggeration. In fact, during the past year, since the Statement was made, there have been only four cases where the passports of persons seeking to enter this country have been impounded. So the figure is grossly exaggerated. In terms of the judicial position, the situation is what it has always been; it has not changed because of the problem of Rhodesia. But if it is the feeling of the House that the present procedures are wrong then I would suggest that this matter should be raised not specifically in regard to Rhodesia but in regard to the rights of all persons who are entitled to passports, because the policy under which this particular passport has been impounded is one that has existed since passports were first issued.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, while accepting that the Government have the right to withdraw a passport, I think that in this case the withdrawal clearly implied gross misconduct on the part of 1580 this distinguished former public servant. The noble Lord has added to that by saying that the reason for withdrawal was that the Government thought that he had "given comfort to" the illegal regime. The words "aid and comfort" appear, I think, in the Treason Statute. The charge that the noble Lord has made is a charge of conduct akin to treason. In those circumstances, what right have the Government to condemn this man without any trial and without any inquiry? Was he given an opportunity of making his defence? There may be many people in Rhodesia who are not supporters of the illegal régime. Was he given any opportunity of showing that he took no active part? May we have answers to those questions?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in regard to the right of appeal, the giving of evidence in his support, I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that the present procedure has been in existence for many years. The passport is the property of the Crown and can be withdrawn. Sir Frederick Crawford has been seen at the Commonwealth Office and it is the view of the Secretary of State that the actions of Sir Frederick Crawford are such that we—
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, let me finish. I think I am entitled to answer the question in my own way and in my own time. It is the view of the Commonwealth Office, of the Secretary of State; that the activities of Sir Frederick Crawford in Rhodesia have been to give support and comfort to the illegal régime. They are not, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, improper, in the sense of criminally improper. But may I put this to the noble and learned Viscount? Last December Lady Crawford's passport was withdrawn. On that occasion I gather there was no protest.
§ A NOBLE LORD: We did not know of it.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, does not the noble Lord appreciate that what has happened here is yet another instance—we had one recently—of public condemnation by the Government of an individual for alleged misconduct without any kind of trial?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I do not know to what the noble and learned Viscount refers.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, while accepting the Statement that my noble friend has made, I would ask him: would it not be possible to tell us whether the particulars of this so-called "aid and comfort" to the illegal régime have been conveyed to the gentleman in question and whether there will be any objection to publishing those particulars for the benefit of the House?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, as I have said, Sir Frederick Crawford has been to the Commonwealth Office, and we have made it clear that if he wishes to return he will be welcome to do so. I think it would be wrong at this stage to disclose the reasons. It is not the usual practice in these matters. Perhaps the House may be aware of the words of Sir Frederick Crawford which I think were on the "tape" prior to luncheon. He said that in view of the fact that he was intending to return to the Commonwealth Office on this matter he did not feel that he ought to go into the case any further.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, although this is one single incident, it marks the end of the present situation and a new phase in the relationship between the United Kingdom and Rhodesia. In these circumstances, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it will not be proper now for the subject to be a matter of debate at an early stage; rather than to link the whole situation to a particular incident (which has also occurred in relation to other people in the last few weeks and months) and whether it would not be important now for this House and for the Government to see clearly the logical consequences of the policy upon which this country is now embarked?
§ A NOBLE LORD: My Lords—
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I have been asked a question. Perhaps I may be allowed to answer it. It is of course always open to the House, if it wishes, to initiate a debate, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was aware of this when he made his point; but it is not customary to initiate a debate immediately upon the making of a Statement. 1582 If a debate is wanted, it is open to the noble Lord to put down a Motion, and this can be the subject of discussion through the usual channels. I think it is quite likely that at some time in the next few weeks we shall have occasion to debate Rhodesia. I hope that noble Lords, when they have considered this further, would wish to think about the desirability or otherwise of a debate. But certainly I should be anxious—and I am sure that my noble friends on the Government Front Bench would be anxious—to meet the wishes of the House in the matter.
§ 3.47 p.m.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am sure that all of us would welcome a debate on Rhodesia—and the earlier the better. But I hope that the noble Lord and the Government will not try to ride off this issue to-day by submitting it to the general question. It is not a general question. It is an incident of a particularly acute kind. I should like to ask the Government one question. Are they aware that the withdrawal of a passport usually implies doubts as to the loyalty of the holder? In these circumstances, I appeal to the Government to rescind this decision of the Minister against this very distinguished public servant. Do the Government not realise that there is to many of us, as my noble friend Lord Carrington has said, something not only new but profoundly shocking in the whole idea that action such as this should be taken against a man—and especially against such a man as this, with his great record of service to this country—and that his personal honour and loyalty should be impugned without t any charge being made against him or any evidence produced? May I ask what is the evidence on which this action has been taken? What is, accurately and definitely, the evidence?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, as a Minister I have the right to defend the Government. I have also to take into account the fact that Sir Frederick Crawford has, as I understand it, indicated that he wishes to return to the Commonwealth Office to discuss this matter (I rely on a "tape" report. which is generally accurate), and has himself said that he does not wish to go into the matter any further. Therefore I think it 1583 would be utterly wrong, even in order to defend the Government, if I were to give reasons why Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State have made this decision. But I must say to the noble Marquess, though he may not accept it, that in fact the régime in Rhodesia is illegal, is treasonable; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, the declaration of independence was directed against Britain and the Crown. I do not doubt that in the minds of most people this regime is regarded as illegal, and anyone who gives comfort and support to it must bear the responsibilty of such action.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, is there not a wider and more sinister aspect to this incident? Is the noble Lord aware that this gentleman is a director of one of the largest firms in Johannesburg, which may be thought to be bringing aid and comfort to Rhodesia by its interest there, among other world interests? Therefore are we not seeing the first shot in a confrontation with the Union of South Africa, and are the Government giving consideration to what the escalation of that is going to mean to our economic situation and unemployment in this country?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I will give the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, an assurance that this decision was not taken because of the fact that Sir Frederick Crawford is the resident director in Rhodesia of this large organisation. It was taken purely on what we believe to be his personal activities.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, must, as a result of these exchanges, have realised that your Lordships, probably on both sides of the House and whatever their feelings about Rhodesia and the illegal regime, must be very uneasy about what the Government have done in relation to this matter. I should have thought that that was the general feeling. The noble Lord has said that he finds it difficult to justify what the Government have done because he feels that he must not do so in the interests of Sir Frederick Crawford. In that case, I do not think that one can press the noble Lord any further. But would he, in the light of 1584 this feeling—which, I should have thought, is shared by almost all of your Lordships—be prepared to make a further Statement on the subject on Monday afternoon when the House meets again?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I understand that there must be disquiet, particularly when individuals are involved in circumstances like this. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, knows me and knows my colleagues. I know my Secretary of State and I know that these decisions would never have been taken lightly. I should not wish to give an assurance that I would make a Statement next week. The Government are not the only people involved here. I would say, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I am prepared to see him and talk with him on a basis which we understand, and, if the circumstances then warrant it, to make a Statement. But I should have thought that in the present circumstances it would be wrong to commit me to a Statement at any particular time, in view of the fact that we are not the only people involved in this matter.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, a question of principle arising out of the replies he has given? May I ask whether British subjects who are arbitrarily deprived of their British passports in this way are entitled to receive Nansen certificates, or other international travel documents, which are issued to all persons not possessing national passports, to enable them to travel freely abroad? This is something which is not denied to anyone else in the world.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I understand that Sir Frederick Crawford, like his wife, was given a document for his return to Rhodesia.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, Sir Frederick wanted to go on holiday with his wife to Southern Portugal this week, and he was told at the Commonwealth Office that that would not be permitted.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I would confirm that, and it is one of the things that was borne in mind when we made this decision.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHMy Lords, as Sir Frederick Crawford has 1585 undertaken to come back for further consultations with the Commonwealth Office, would it not be a generous and proper move to restore his passport pending the result of those consultations, in order that this man may take a perfectly innocent holiday with his wife?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the decision has been taken. I could not undertake to meet the noble Earl, but I understand that Sir Frederick Crawford will be coming to the Commonwealth Office, and we shall not in any way delay receiving him and considering what further things he wishes to say to us.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? As I understood from one of his earlier replies, he bases the legal position on the fact that a passport is the property of Her Majesty and can be withdrawn from anybody who possesses it; and it has been withdrawn from this particular man because he has given comfort to the Rhodesia régime. If I am right, that first principle applies to every holder of a British passport, whether resident in this country or not. May I ask him whether the Government think they would be entitled to withdraw a passport from any British citizen who makes adverse criticisms in this country of their Rhodesia policy; who holds that Rhodesia policy to be wholly wrong and immoral? Could such a man have his passport taken from him on these grounds?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, it depends on the extent to which he gives aid and comfort and also to what extent he is involved with the illegal régime. We in this country still value freedom of speech—
§ LORD SHEPHERD—something we should like to see return to Rhodesia, something we should like to see back in Rhodesia. All these cases are judged on individual merit and the circumstances of the case.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, in recognising that, does not the noble Lord also recognise that in the light of what he has said he has branded this man as guilty of conduct akin to treason; and 1586 has done so without any charfge being preferred; without any trial and without any evidence being adduced? The noble Lord has the opportunity of adducing the evidence on which he has acted, and I, for one, shall look forward to seeing it.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is being less than fair. You can twist words which is not the usual activity of the noble and learned Viscount. I did not say that Sir Frederick Crawford had committed treason; what I did say was that he had given aid and comfort to an illegal regime, and there is no doubt about it—even on the Front Bench opposite or the noble and learned Viscount—that the Rhodesian régime is illegal.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, before we leave this point—and I do not wish to prolong the debate—may I ask whether the noble Lord could take an early opportunity to set the record straight; because column 4 of the Hansard from which he quoted deals with losses from crime?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I have my paper in front of me and I would not depart—perhaps we had better compare papers.
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, I may be the only Back-Bencher on this side of your Lordships' House who disagrees completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, attributed to most of the Members here. Constitutionally it seems to me that the Government are entitled to do what they did. If they did anything illegal in a, sense towards a private person, that private person has his re remedy in the courts. But, my Lords, I hear with some surprise noble Lords opposite protesting so fervently about what they conceive to be an injustice in this case, when the illegal régime in Rhodesia has for many months interned without trial its political opponents of whatever colour.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, in case the Minister has the legal knowledge which apparently is possessed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, would he tell us what is the legal remedy of a British subject deprived of his passport?
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, I do not think that there has been any legal wrong.